Garrigou-Lagrange (English)

Catholic Family News Reprint Series

"Where is the New Theology

Leading Us?"

by Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.
Translated from the French by Suzanne M. Rini

Editor's note: Catholic Family News proudly presents its exclusive English
translation of Father Garrigou-Lagrange's landmark work, "La nouvelle theologie oil
va-t-elleT, which was first published in 1946 in Rome's Angelicum, one of the most
prestigious theological journals in the world. Father Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. one of
the greatest Thomistic theologians of this century, warned that the "New Theology" of
Maurice Blondel, Henri de Lubac, etc. is nothing more than a revitalized Modernism.
This same new theology was subsequently condemned by Pope Pius XII in Humani
Generis, This article, because of its in-depth nature, is meant not only to be read, but
studied. It is hoped that the publication of this work will help dispel the widespread
confusion of our time, especially since, by admission of its own adherents, this
modernist "new theology" has become "the official theology of Vatican IF.

In a recent book, Conversion et grace chez S.
Thomas d'Aquin 1 ("Conversion and Grace in St.
Thomas Aquinas"), Father Henri Boulliard writes,
"Since spirit evolves, an unchanging truth can only
maintain itself by virtue of a simultaneous and co-
relative evolution of all ideas, each proportionate to
the other. A theology which is not current [does not
keep changing — SMR] will be a false theology" 2

And in the pages preceding and following [the
above quotation], the author demonstrates that the
theology of St. Thomas, in several of its most
important sections, is not current. For example, St.
Thomas' idea of sanctifying grace was as a form (a
basic principle of supernatural operations which the
infused virtues and the seven gifts have as their
principle). "The ideas employed by St. Thomas are
simply Aristotelian notions apphed to theology." 3

And further: "By renouncing the Aristotelian
system, modern thought abandoned the ideas, design
and dialectical opposites which only made sense as
functions of that system." 4 Thus modern thought
abandoned the notion of form.

How then can the reader evade the conclusion,
namely that, since it is no longer current, the theology
of St. Thomas is a false theology?

But then why have the Popes so often

instructed us to follow the doctrine of St. Thomas?
Why does the Church say in her Code of Canon Law,
Can. 1366, n.2:

"The professors should by all means
treat of the rational philosophy and
theology, and the training of the
students in these subjects according to
the method, doctrine and principles of
the Angelic Doctor (Aquinas), and
should hold these as "sacred"? 6

Further, how can "an unchanging truth"
maintain itself if the two notions united by the verb to
be, are essentially variable or changeable 1 ?

An unchangeable relationship can only be
conceived of as such if there is something
unchangeable in the two terms that it unites.
Otherwise, for all intents and purposes, it's like saying
that the waves of the sea can be stapled together.

Of course, the two ideas that are united in an
unchangeable affirmation are sometimes at first
confused and then distinguished one from the other,
such as the ideas of nature, of person, substance,
accident, transubstantiation, the Real Presence, sin,
original sin, grace, etc. But if these are not

Catholic Family News Reprint

1

#309

fundamentally unchangeable, how then will the
affirmation which unites them by the verb "to be" be
unchangeable? How can one hold that the Real
Presence of the substance of the Body of Christ in the
Eucharist requires transubstantiation if the ideas are
fundamentally variable? How can one assert that
original sin occurred in us through a willed fault of the
first man, if the notion of original sin is essentially
unstable? How can one hold that the particular
judgment after death is eternally irrevocable, if these
ideas are said to change? Finally, how can one
maintain that all of these propositions are invariably
true if the idea of truth itself must change, and if one
must substitute for the traditional definition of truth
(the conformity of judgment to intuitive reality and to
its immutable laws) what has been proposed in recent
years by the philosophy of action: the conformity of
judgment to the exigencies of action, or to human life,
which is always evolving?

1. Do the Dogmatic Formulae Themselves
Retain Their Immutability?

Father Henri BouUiard 6 responds: "The
affirmation which is expressed in them remains." But,
he adds: 7

"Perhaps one might wonder if it is still
possible to assert the contingency of the
ideas implied in the conciliar
definitions? Will it not compromise the
irreformable character of these
definitions? The Council of Trent (sess.
6, cap. 7, can. 10) par excellence, in its
teaching on justification, employs the
idea of formal cause. Consequently, did
it not enshrine this term and confer a
definitive character upon the idea of
grace as a form? Not at all. It was
certainly not the intention of the
Council to canonize an Aristotelian
idea, nor even a theological idea
conceived under the influence of
Aristotle. It simply wished to affirm,
against the Protestants, that
justification is an interior renewal.
Toward this end, it used some shared
theological ideas of the times. But one
can substitute others for these, without
modifying the sense of its teaching."
(Emphasis mine.)

Undoubtedly, the Council did not canonize the

Catholic Family News Reprint

Aristotelian idea of form with all of its relations to
other ideas of the Aristotelian system. But it approved
it as a stable human idea, in the sense that we speak
of everything that formally constitutes a thing (in this
case, justification). 8 In this sense, it speaks of
sanctifying grace as distinct from actual grace, by
saying that it is a supernatural gift, infused, which is
inherent in the soul and by which man is formally
saved. 9 If the Council defined faith, hope and charity
as permanently infused virtues, their radical principle
(habitual or sanctifying grace) must also be a
permanently infused gift, and from that, distinct from
actual grace or from a divine, transitory action.

But how can one maintain the sense of this
teaching of the Council of Trent, namely that
"sanctifying grace is the formal cause of salvation"? I
do not say, if u one substitutes a verbal equivalent"; I
say with Father Henri BouUiard "if one substitutes
another idea".

If it is another idea, then it is no longer that of
formal cause: Then it is also no longer true to say with
the Council: "Sanctifying grace is the formal cause of
salvation." It is necessary to be content to say that
grace was defined at the time of the Council of Trent
as the formal cause of salvation, but today it is
necessary to define it otherwise, and that this *pass$
definition is no longer current and thus is no longer
true, because a doctrine whi
was said, is a false doctrine. 10

The ans wer will be: For the idea of formal
cause one can substitute another equivalent idea. Here
one is satisfied by mere words (by insisting fitst on
another and then on an equivalent), especially since it
is not verbal equivalence, rather, it is another idea.
What happens even to the idea of truth? u

Thus the very serious question continues to
resurface: Does the conciliar proposition hold as true:
through conformity with the object outside the mind,
and with its immutable laws, or rather through
conformity with the requirements of human life which
is always changing? 12

One sees the danger of the new definition of
truth, no longer the adequation of intellect and reality
but the conformity of mind and life.™ When Maurice
Blondel in 1906 proposed this substitution, he did not
foresee all of the consequences for the faith. Would he
himself not be terrified, or at least very troubled?
What life" is meant in this definition of: "conformity
of mind and life"? It means human life. And so then,
how can one avoid the modernist definition: "Truth is
no more immutable than man himself inasmuch as it
is evolved with him, in him and through him. (Denz.
2058) One understands why Pius X said of the
modernists: "they pervert the eternal concept of truth. 11
(Denz. 2080)

#309

It is very dangerous to say: "Ideas change, the
affirmation remains." If even the idea of truth is
changing, the affirmations do not remain true in the
same way, nor according to the same meaning. Then
the meaning of the Council is no longer maintained, as
one would have wished.

Unfortunately, the new definition of the truth
has spread among those who forget what Pius X had
said: "We admonish professors to bear well in mind
that they cannot set aside St. Thomas especially in
metaphysical questions, without grave
disadvantage." 1,7 A small error in principle, says
Aquinas, is a great error in conclusion" (Encyclical
Pascendi)

Moreover, no new definition of truth is offered
in the new definition of theology: "Theology is no more
than a spirituality or religious experience which found
its intellectual expression." And so follow assertions
such as: "If theology can help us to understand
spirituality, spirituality will, in the best of cases, cause
our theological categories to burst, and we shall be
obliged to formulate different types of theology... For
each great spirituality corresponded to a great
theology." Does this mean that two theologies can be
true, even if their tnain theses are contradictory and
opposite? The answer will be no if one keeps to the
traditional definition of truth. The answer will be yes
if one adopts the new definition of truth, conceived not
in relation to being and to immutable laws, but
relative to different religious experiences. These
definitions seek only to reconcile us to modernism.

It should be remembered that on December 1,
1924, the Holy Office condemned 12 propositions
taken from the philosophy of action, among which was
number 5, or the new definition of truth: "Truth is not
found in any particular act of the intellect wherein
conformity with the object would be had, as the
Scholastics say, but rather truth is always in a
state of becoming, and consists in a progressive
alignment of the understanding with life, indeed
a certain perpetual process, by which the intellect
strives to develop and explain that which experience
presents or action requires: by which principle,
moreover, as in all progression, nothing is ever
determined or fixed." 18 The last of these condemned
propositions is: "Even after Faith has been received,
man ought not to rest in the dogmas of religion,
and hold fast to them fixedly and immovably, but
always solicitous to remain moving ahead toward a
deeper truth and even evolving into new notions,
and even correcting thai which he believes." 1 *

Many, who did not heed these warnings, have
now reverted to these errors.

But then, how can it be held that sanctifying
grace is essentially supernatural grace, free, not at all

due to human nature nor to angelic nature?

By light of Revelation, St. Thomas clearly
articulated this principle; the faculties, the "habits"
and their acts are specified by their formal object; or
the formal object of human intelligence and even that
of angelic intelligence, are immensely inferior to the
proper object of divine intelligence. 20 But if one puts
aside all metaphysics, in order to be satisfied with
historical study and psychological introspection, the
text of St. Thomas becomes unintelligible. From this
point of view, what will be maintained by traditional
doctrine regarding distinction not being contingent
upon, but necessitated by virtue of the order of grace
and of nature?

On this subject, there is the recent book of
Father Henri de Lubac, Surnaturel (Etudes
historiques) ["The Supernatural" in "Historical
Studies"], 21 on the probable impeccability of the angels
in the natural order, in which he vrritcs: "Nothing is
said by St. Thomas regarding the distinction which
would be forged later by a number of Thomistic
theologians between 'God author of the natural order'
and 'God author of the supernatural order' ... as if
natural beatitude ... in the case of the angels would
have had to result from an infallible activity, non-
sinning.

On the contrary, St. Thomas often
distinguishes the ultimate supernatural end of the
ultimate natural end, 23 and regarding the devil, he
says, 24 "The sin of the devil was not in anything which
pertains to the natural order, but according to
something supernatural." 25

Thus one would become completely
disinterested in the pronuntiata maiora (major
pronouncements) of the philosophical doctrine of St.
Thomas, that is in the 24 Thomist theses approved in
1916 by the Sacred Congregation of Studies.

Moreover, Father Gaston Fessard, S.J. in Les
Etudes ["Studies"], November 1945, 26 speaks of the
"welcome drowsiness which protects canonized
Thomism, but also, as Peguy has said, TDuried if
whereas the school of thought dedicated to the
contrary is full of life."

In the same review in April 1946, it was said
that neo-Thomism and the decisions of the Biblical
Co mmis sion are "a guardrail but not an answer." And
it was proposed that Thomism be replaced, as if Leo
Xm in the Encyclical Aeterni Patris, would have been
fooled, as if Pius X, in reviving this same
recommendation, had taken a false route? And on
what path did those who were inspired by this new
theology end up? Where but on the road of skepticism,
fantasy and heresy? His Holiness, Pius XII, recently
said in a published Discourse in LVsservatore
Romano, Dec. 19, 1946:

Catholic Family News Reprint

3

#309

"There is a good deal of talk (but
without the necessary clarity of
concept), about a 'new theology*, which
must be in constant transformation,
following the example of all other
things in the world, which are in a
constant state of flux and movement,
without ever reaching their term. If we
were to accept such an opinion, what
would become of the unchangeable
dogmas of the Catholic Faith; and
what would become of the unity
and stability of that Faith?" 27

****

2. Application of New Principles to the
Doctrines of Original Sin and the
Eucharist

Some will no doubt say that we exaggerate, but
even a small error regarding first ideas and first
principles has incalculable consequences which are not
foreseen by those who have likewise been fooled. The
consequences of the new views, some of which we have
already reviewed, have gone well beyond the forecasts
of the authors we have cited. It is not difficult to see
these consequences in certain typewritten papers,
which have been sent (some since 1934) to clergy,
seminaries, and Catholic intellectuals; one finds in
them the most singular assertions and negations on
original sin and the Real Presence.

At times, in these same circulated papers,
before such novelties are proposed, the reader is
conditioned by being told: This will appear crazy at
first, however, if you look at it closely, it is not
illogical. And many end up believing it. Those with
superficial intelligence will adopt it, and the dictum,
a A doctrine which is not current, is no longer true" will
be out walking. Some are tempted to conclude: "It
seems that the doctrine of the eternal pains of hell is
no longer current, and so it is no longer true." It is said
in the Gospel that one day charity will be frozen in
many hearts and they will be seduced by error.

It is a strict obligation of conscience for
traditional theologians to respond. Otherwise, they
gravely neglect their duty, and they will be made to
account for this before God.

In the files copied and distributed in France in
recent years (at least since 1934, some of which this
writer has), the most fantastic and false doctrines

regarding original sin are taught.

In these same files, the act of Christian Faith
is not defined as a supernatural and infallible belief
according to revealed truths on account of the
authority of God Who reveals them 2 *, but as a belief of
the spirit in relation to a general outlook on the
universe. This perspective reflects what is possible and
most probable but not demonstrable. The Faith
becomes an ensemble of probable opinions. From this
point of view, Adam appears to be not an individual
man from whom the human species is descended, but
who is, instead, a collective.

Thus, from that point of view, it becomes
impossible to hold to the revealed doctrine of original
sin as explicated by Saint Paul, Rom. 5:18: "Therefore
as by the offense of one, unto all men to condemnation;
so also by the justice of one, unto all men to .
justification of life." 29 All of the Fathers of the Church,
who were authorized interpreters cf Scripture in its
constant sacred teaching, have always meant that
Adam was an individual man as after Christ, and not
a collective. 30 But what is now proposed to us is a
probability with a contrary meaning to that of the
teaching of the Councils of Orange and Trent, Denz.
175, 789, 791, 793. 31

Further, from this new point of view, the
Incarnation of the Word would be merely a moment in
universal evolution.

The hypothesis of the material evolution of the
world is extended into the spiritual order. The
supernatural world is in evolution toward the full
coming of Christ.

Sin, in so far as it affects the soul, is something
spiritual and thus bitemporal. Thus it is of little
importance for God that it took place at the beginning
of the history of humanity or during the course of
history.

The desire then is to change not only the
expository mode of theology, but even the nature of
theology, as well as that of dogma. No longer
considered is the point of view of the faith infused by
divine Revelation, and interpreted by the Church in its
Councils. It is no longer a question of the Councils, but
the replacement of them with a biological point of view
torturously conceived by dim artificial light only to
arrive at the most fantastic points of view that recall
those of Hegelian evolutionism, which allows
Christian dogmas to be retained in name only.

This then is the way of the rationalists, the
school most desired by the enemies of the faith, which
reduces all to mere and changeable opinion so that
there is no value retained in them. What remains of
the word of God given to the world for the salvation of
souls?

In the articles titled, "How I believe" one

Catholic Family News Reprint

4

#309

reads;

32

"If we wish, we other Christians, to
conserve to Christ the qualities which
are the basis of His power and our
adoration, we can do nothing better or
even nothing more than accept
completely the most modern ideas of
Evolution. Under pressure, the union
of Science and philosophy occurs, and
the World more and more imposes
itself on our experience and our
thought as a system linked by
activities gradually lifting us toward
liberty of conscience. The only
satisfying interpretation of this process
is that of regarding it as irreversible
and convergent. Thus before we
arrived, there was a universal cosmic
Center, where all leads, where All is
felt, or all merge into each other. Ah, it
is the physical pole of the universal.
Evolution is necessary to locate and
recognize the plenitude of Christ ... By
discovering the apex of the world,
evolution renders Christ, and all that
He gave in service of making sense of
the world, possible,
evolution possible.

tfectly aware of the staggering
ions of this idea ... but, by
J a parallel wonder, I can do
nothing else but note, in terms of
physical reality, the juridical
expressions in the Church's deposit its
Faith ... I have unhesitatingly come to
the realization that I can only go in
that direction which seems able to let
me progress, and consequently, to save
my Faith.

"In the first place, Catholicism
deceived me with its narrow definitions
of the World, and by its failure to
understand the role of Matter. Now, I
recognize that by means of the
Incarnation of God, it was revealed to
me that I am only able to be saved by
uniting myself to the universe. And my
most profound 'pantheistic' hopes are
guided, reassured and fulfilled by this
same thrust (into the universe). The
World around me, becomes divine ...

"A general convergence of religions
toward a Christ-universal, who,
fundamentally, fulfills everyone: this
appears to me to be the only conversion
possible to the World, and the only
form imaginable for the Religion of the
fixture." 33

Thus the material world would have evolved
toward spirit, and the world of the spirit would evolve
naturally, that is to say toward the supernatural order
and toward the fullness of Christ. Thus, the
Incarnation of the World, the mystical body, the
universal Christ would be moments of Evolution, and
based on this view of a constant progress from the
beginning, it would seem that there was not a fall at
the beginning of the history of humanity, but a
constant progress of good which triumphs over evil
according to the same laws of evol"+™ n . Original sin
in us would be the result of man's faults, which had
exercised a deadly influence on humanity.

See then what remains of the Christian
dogmas in this theory which distances itself from our
Credo in proportion to its approach to Hegelian
evolutionism.

In the above cited work, the writer said: "I
have taken the only road that seems possible to me for
making progress and consequently, for saving my
F aith. n This therefore means that the Faith itself only
saves if it progresses, and it changes so much that one
can no longer recognize the Faith of the Apostles, nor
that of the Fathers of the Councils. It is a way of
applying the principle of the new theology: a A doctrine
which is no longer current, is no longer true" and for
some, it suffices that it is no longer current in certain
quarters. From this emerges that the truth is always
in fieri, never immutable. The Faith is the conformity
to judgment, not with being and its necessary laws,
but with life, which is constantly and forever evolving!
Here exactly is where the propositions condemned by
the Holy Office, December 1, 1924, lead, and which we
have quoted above: 34 "No abstract proposition can
have in itself immutable truth. Even after Faith
has been received, man ought not to rest in the
dogmas of religion, and hold fast to them fixedly
and immovably, but always solicitous to remain
moving ahead toward a deeper truth and even
evolving into new notions, and even correcting that
which he believes." 35

****

We have another example of the same
deviation in the typewritten papers on the Real
which have been circulating for some

Catholic Family News Reprint

5

#309

months among the clergy. These say that, formerly,
the real problem with the Real Presence was not well
posed: "The response to all of the difficulties that were
posed was: Christ is present after the manner of a
substance ... This explication did not touch upon the
real problem. We add that in its deceptive clarity, it
suppressed the religious mystery. Strictly speaking,
there is no longer a mystery there, there is nothing
more than a marvel."

Thus it is St. Thomas who did not know how to
pose the problem of the Real Presence and his
solution: the presence of the Body of Christ by mode of
substance 36 would be illusory; its clarity is a deceptive
clarity.

We are warned that the new explication being
proposed "evidently implies that the method of
reflection substitutes the Cartesian and Spinozan for
the scholastic method".

A bit further on, concerning
transubstantiation t one reads: "This word is not
without inconvenience, like that of original sin. It
responds to the manner in which the Scholastics
conceived of and defined this transformation and their
definition is inadmissible"

Here the writer distances himself not only from
St. Thomas, but from the Council of Trent 37 , because
it (the Council) defined transubstantiation as true by
faith, and even said: "a change which the Catholic
Church most fittingly calls transubstantiation" 38
Today these new theologians say:

"Not only is this word inconvenient, ...
it corresponds to an inadmissible
concept and definition."

"In the Scholastic perspective, in which
the reality of the thing is *the
substance', the thing may ' not really
change, only if the substance changes
... by the transubstantiation. According
to the current view, where, by virtue of
the offering which was made according
to a rite determined by Christ, the
bread and the wine became the
efficacious symbol of the sacrifice of
Christ, and consequently of the
spiritual presence, and their religious
being was changed, not only their
substance. 39 And also: "This is what we
can designate

But it is clear that it is no longer the
transubstantiation defined by the Council of Trent,
u that singular conversion of the whole substance of the
bread into the body, and of the entire substance of the

wine into the blood, the species of the bread and wine
only remaining". 40 It is evident that the sense of the
Council is not maintained by the introduction of these
new notions. The bread and the wine have become
only "the efficacious symbols of the spiritual presence
of Christ."

This brings us uniquely close to the modernist
position which does not affirm the Real Presence of the
Body of Christ in the Eucharist, but which only says
from a religious and practical point of view: Comport
yourself toward the Eucharist the same way you
behave with regard to the humanity of Christ.

In these same circulated papers quite the same
is done to the mystery of the Incarnation: "Although
Christ is truly God, one cannot say that, because of
Him, God was present in the land of Judea . . . God was
no more present in Palestine than anywhere else. The
efficacious sign of this divine presence was manifested
in Palestine in the First Century of our epoch, and this
is all that one can say." 41

Finally the same writer adds: "The problem of
the causality of the sacraments is a false problem,
born of a false method for posing the question."

****

We do not think that the writers whom we
have discussed abandoned the doctrine of St. Tho:
Rather, they never adhered to it, nor ever unders
it very well. This is saddening and disquieting.

Wouldn't it be that only skeptics can be formed
through this type of teaching, since nothing certain is
proposed in place of St. Thomas? Moreover, they
pretend to submit to the directions of the Church, but
what is the substance of this submission?

A professor of theology wrote to me:

"In effect, the very notion of the truth
has been put into debate, and without
fully realizing it, thus revisiting
modernism in thought as in action. The
writings that you have spoken to me
about are much read in France. It is
true that they exercise a huge
influence on the average type of soul.
They have little effect on serious
people. It is necessary to write for
those who have the sincere desire to be
enlightened."

Surely, the Church not only recognized the
authority of St. Thomas in the domain of theology, but,
by extension, also in philosophy. Contrary to their
assertions, the Encyclical, Aeterni patris of Leo XIII
speaks above all of the philosophy of St. Thomas.

Catholic Family News Reprint

Likewise, the 24 Thomistic theses proposed in 1916 by
the Sacred Congregation of Studies are of a
philosophical order, and if these pronunciata maiora
of St. Thomas are not certified, then how can his
theology have value, since they are constantly
reiterated in the philosophy? Finally, we have already
cited Pius X, who wrote: "We admonish professors to
bear well in mind that they cannot set aside St.
Thomas especially in metaphysical questions,
without grave disadvantage." 17 A small error in
principle, says Aquinas, is a great error in
conclusion" (Encyclical Pascendi)

From whence do these trends come? A good
analyst wrote to me:

"We are harvesting the fruits of the
unguarded attendance of university
s courses. Those who have attempted to
attend the classes of the masters of
modernist thought in order to convert
them have allowed themselves to be
converted by them. Little by little, they
come to accept their ideas, their
methods, their disdain of scholasticism,
their historicism, their idealism and all
of their errors. If this is the result f<
those already formed,
perilous for the others."

*****

It revisits modernism. Because it accepted the
proposition which was intrinsic to modernism: that of
substituting, as if it were illusory, the traditional
definition of truth: aequatio rei et intellectus (the
adequation of intellect and reality) , for the subjective
definition: adequatio realis mentis et vitae (the
adequation of intellect and life). That was more
explicitly stated in the already cited proposition, which
emerged from the philosophy of action, and was
condemned by the Holy Office, December 1, 1924:
"Truth is not found in any particular act of the intellect
wherein conformity with the object would be had, as
the Scholastics say, but rather truth is always in a
state of becoming, and consists in a progressive
alignment of the understanding with life, indeed
a certain perpetual process, by which the intellect
strives to develop and explain that which experience
presents or action requires: by which principle,
moreover, as in all progression, nothing is ever
determined or fixed" 18 (v. Monitore ecclesiastico, 1925. t.
I; p. 194.)

The truth is no longer the conformity of

to intuitive reality and its immutable laws
but the conformity of judgment to the exigencies of
action, and of human life which continues to evolve.
The philosophy of being or ontology is substituted by
the philosophy of action which defines truth as no
longer a function of being but of action.

Thus is modernism reprised: "Truth is no more
immutable than man himself, inasmuch as it is
evolved with him, in him and through him. 42 As well,
Pius X said of the modernists, "they pervert the eternal
concept of truth"

This is what our mentor, Father M.B. Schwalm
previewed in his articles in Revue thomiste, (1896
through 1898) 43 on the philosophy of action, on the
moral dogmatism of Father Labertbonni&re, on the
crisis of contemporary apologetics, on the illusions of
idealism, and on the dangers that all of these posed to
the Faith.

But while many thought that Father Schwalm •
had exaggerated, little by little they conceded the right
to cite the new definition of truth, and they more or
less ceased defending the traditional definition of
truth, as well as the conformity of judgment to
intuitive being and the immutable laws of non-
contradiction, of causality, etc. For them, the truth is
no longer that which is t but that which is becoming —
and is constantly and always changing.

Thus to cease to defend the traditional
definition of truth by permitting it to be illusory, it is
then necessary to substitute the vitalist and
evolutionary. This then leads to complete relativism
and is a very serious error.

Moreover, this leads to saying what the
enemies of the Church wish to lead us to say. When
one reads their recent works, one sees that they are
completely content and that they themselves propose
interpretations of our dogmas, whether it be regarding
original sin, cosmic evil, the Incarnation, Redemption,
the Eucharist, the final universal reintegration, the
cosmic Christ, the convergence of all religions toward
a universal cosmic center. 44

One understands why the Holy Father in his
recent speech published in the September 19, 1946,
issue of UOsservatore Romano, said, when speaking of
the "new theology": "If we were to accept such an
opinion, what would become of the unchangeable
dogmas of the Catholic Faith; and what would
become of the unity and stability of that Faith?"

Further, since Providence only permits evil for
a good reason, and since we see all about us an
excellent reaction against the errors we have
emphasized herein, we can then hope that these
deviations shall be the occasion of a true doctrinal
renewal, achieved through a profound study of the
works of St. Thomas, whose value is more and more

Catholic Family News Reprint

apparent when compared to today's intellectual
disarray. 45

Footnotes:

1. 1944. p. 219

2. Emphasis added.

3. ibid, p. 213 ff.

4. p. 224.

5. "Philosophise rationaiis ac theologiae studia et alumnorumin his

disciplinis institutionem professores omnino pertractent ad Angelici Doctoris

rationem, docthnam, et principia, eaque sancte teneant." Code of Canon

Law, Can. 1366, n.2

7. ibid

8. 1 have explained this more fully in Le Sens commun, la philosophie de
I'etre et les formules dogmatiques ["Common Sense: The philosophy of
being and dogmatic formulae"] 4th edition, 1936, p. 362ff.

9. CF. Denz/nper, 799. 821

10. Further it is defined that the infused virtues (above all the theological
virtues), which derive from habitual grace, are qualities, permanent
principles of supernatural and meritorious supernatural operations; rt is thus
necessary that habitual grace or sanctifying grace (by which we are in a
state of grace), from which these virtues proceed as from their source, are
themselves a permanently infused quality and not at all a motion like actual
grace. Thus it is much before St. Thomas that Faith, hope and charity were
conceived as infused virtues. What could be clearer? Why revert to
Thomas' era under the pretext of preempting these questions, and of
putting into doubt the most certain and fundamental truths? To do so is an
indication of the intellectual disarray of our times.

11. Mr. Maurice Blondel wrote in Les Annals de Philosophie chretienne
[The Annals of Christian Philosophy"], June 15, 1906, p. 235: "For the
abstract and chimerical adaequatlo vel et Intellectus one substitutes
methodical research, Vadaequatio realls mentis et vitae." It is not without
great responsibility that one calls "chimericaT the traditional definition of the
truth defined for centuries in the Church, and that one speaks of it by
substituting another, in every area that comprises the theological Faith.
Have the further works of Blondel corrected this deviation? We are unable
to ascertain that. He also says in L'£tre et les etres. 1935, p. 415 "Any
intellectual evidence, even that of absolute principles themselves, and that
have an ontological value, impose on us a constrained form of certainty.'
In order to admit to the ontological value of these principles, one must have
a free choice, and that by means of this choice, their ontological value is
thus only probable. But It is necessary to admit according to the necessity
of action secundum conformrtatem mentis et vitae. It can not be otherwise
if one substitutes the philosophy of action for the philosophy of being or
ontology. Thus truth was defined not as a function of being, but of action.
Everything was changed. An error regarding the first idea of truth gives rise
to an error regarding ail the rest. See aiso in La Pensee of Blondel (1 934)
V.I, p. 39, 130-136, 347, 355; and V. If. P. 65 ff., 90, 96-196.

1 2. per conformitatem cum ente extramentaii et legibus eius immutabilibus,
an per conformitatem cum exigentiis vitae humanae quae semper
evolvitur? (Editors Note: Anytime that Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange employed
Latin, we have rendered the text in English and the Latin in footnote.)

1 3. "no longer adaequatio rei et intellectus, but conformitas mentis et vitae"

14. Another theologian, whom we shall cite further on, asks us to say that
at the time of the Council of Trent the transubstantiation was conceived as
the changing, the conversion of the substance of the bread into that of the
Body of Christ, but that today it has come to be thought of as the
transubstantiation, without this changing of substance, meaning that the
substance of the bread, which remains, becomes the efficacious sign of the
Body of Christ. And that this pretends to conserve the sense of the Counclll

1 5. "Veritas non est immutabilis plusquam ipse homo, quippe quae cum
ipso, in ipso etperipsum evolvitur". (Denz. 2058)

16. "aetemam veritatis notionem pervertunt" (Denz 2080)

17. "Magistros autem monemus, ut rite hoc teneant Aquinatem vel parum
deserere, praesertlm In re metaphyslca, non sine magno detrimento
esse. Parvus error In princlpio, sic verbis ipsius Aquinatis licet uti, est
magnus In fine." (Encyclical Pascendi)

18. u conformltas cum oblecto, ut aiunt scholastic!, sed Veritas

semper In fieri, consistitque in adaequatione progressiva Intellectus et
vitae, scil. in motu quodam perpetuo, quo intellectus evolvere et explicare
nititur id quod pant experientia vel exlglt actio: ea tamen lege ut in toto
progressu nihil unquam ratum fixumque habeatur." The last of these
condemned propositions is: "Etiam post fidem conceptam, homo non
debet qulescere In dogmatlbus rellglonls, elsque fixe et Immoblllter
adhaerere, sed semper anxius manere progrediendi ad ultehorem
veritatem, nempe evolvendo In novus sensus, immo et corrigendo id
quod credit."

19. These condemned propositions are found in Monitors ecclesiastico,
1925, p. 194; in Documentation catholique, 1925, V. I. p. 771 ff., and in
Praelectiones Theologiae naturalis by Father Descoqs, 1 932, VI, p. 1 50 V
II, p. 287ff.

20. The Deity or the intimate life of God, cf. 1 a , q. 12, a.4.

21. 1946, p. 254.

22. Ibid, p. 275.

23. CF. 1st, q. 23, a. 1: "Finis ad quemres creatae ordinatura Deo est
duplex. Unus, qui excedit proportionem naturae creatae et facultatem,
et hie finis est vita aetema, quae in d'rvina visione consistit: quae est supra
naturm cuiustibet creaturae, ut supra habitum est 1st, q. 12, a. 4. Alius
autem finis est naturae creatae proportionatus r quern scil. res creata
potest aWngere sec. Virtutem suae naturae.' Item 1st. lind, q. 62, a. 1 : "Est
autem duplex homlnls beatitudo, sive fetichas, ut supra dictum est, q. 3.
A. 2 ad 4; 1. 5, a.5. Una quidem proportionata huw°e naturae, ad quam
scil. homo prevenire potest per principia suae naturae. Alia autem est
beatitudo, naturam hominis excedens.

Item de Veritata, q. 14. a. 2 : 'Est autem duplex homlnls bourn uttimum.
Quorum unum est proportionatum naturae ... haec est felicitas de qua
philosophi hcuti sunt ... Aliud est bonum naturae humanae proportionem
excedens." If one no longer admits to the classical distinction between the
order of nature and that of grace, one will say that grace is the normal and
obligatory achievement of nature, and the concession of such a favor does
not remain less, one says, free, like creation and all that follows It, because
creation is no longer necessary. To which Father Descoqs, S.J. in his little
book, Autourde la crise du Transformism ["On the crisis of Transformism"],
2nd edition, 1944, p. 84, very legitimatoly responds: This explication
seems to us in distinct opposition to the most explicit Catholic teachings.
It aiso contains an evidently erroneous conception of grace. Creation is
never a grace in the theotogicai sense of the word, grace only being at*?
to be found in relation to nature. In SLch a perspective. The ;
order disappears.'

24. De malo, 1.16, a.3.

25. 'Peccatum diaboli non fuit in aiiquo quod perOnet ad
naturaiem, sed secundum aliquid supernatural." Item la, 1.63, a. J. ad 3.

26. p. 269-270

27. "Plura dicta sunt, at non satis explorata ratione 'de nova theotogia' quae
cum universis semper volventibus rebus, una volvatur, semper itura,
numquam perventura. SI talis opinio amplectenda esse videatur, quid fiat
de numquam Immutandls cathollcls dogmatlbus, quid de tldei unitate
et stabllltate?"

2B.j3ropter auctoritatem Del revelantls.

29. "Sicut per nsius delictum in omnes homines in condemnationem, sic
etperunlus iustitiam in omnes homines in justificationem vitae. Sicutenim
per inoboedlentlam unlus peccatores constitutl sunt multi, ita per unlus
oboedltlonem iusti constituentur multi." Bom. V, 18.

30. CF. L'£pitre aux Romains [The Epistle to the Romans!, by Father M.
J. Lagrange CP. 3rd Edition, Commentary on chapter V.

31. The difficulties for the positivistic sciences and for prehistory were
exposed in the article "Polygenism du Diet, de thiol. Cath. The authors of
this article, A. and J. Bouyssonie clearly distinguished, section 2536, the
purview of philosophy as being "Where the naturalist, inasmuch as he is
one, is incompetent." It would have been well if, in that same article, the
question had been treated from three points of view: the positive sciences,
philosophy and theology, particularly in relation to dogma and original sin.
According to several theologians, the hypothesis that before Adam there
were men on earth who were of the human race, is not contrary to the faith.
But according to Scripture, the human species which is dispersed over the
entire earth, derives from Adam, Gen. III. 5.. .20, Wis. X, I: Rom V 12,18.1 9:
Act. Ap. XVII 26.

Catholic Family News Reprint

Also regarding the philosophical point of view, a free intervention of God in
creating the human soul was necessary, and even for preparing the body
to receive it. The engendering of an inferior nature cannot however produce
this superior state of his species; more comes out of less, contrary to the
principle of causality.

Finally, as in the quoted article, col. 2535, "According to the mutationists (of
today), a unique seed gave rise to the new species. The species was
begun by an exceptional (superior) individual:

32. p. 15.

33. Emphasis added. The same kind of nearly fantastic ideas are found in
an article by Father Teilhard de Chardin, "Life and Planets," published in
les Etudes, May 1946, especially p. 158-160 and 168. — See also Cahiers
du Monde nouveau PNew World Notebooks"]. August 1946, also by Father
de Chardin, "Un grand Evenement qui se dessine: le Planetisation
humane." ["A great event is being planned: Human Planetization"]
[Translator's note: Without reading this article, it is difficult to know Teilhard
de Chardin's meaning which could variously mean something as banal as
"space travel" or more exoticalty, the "beaming up of consciousness," which
would be commensurate with his notions on man evolving toward and to
"pure mind" or the noosphere. — SMR]

I have also recently quoted a work by the same author, taken from Etudes,
1921 , V. II, p. 543. where he spoke of The impossibility determining our
absolute beginning in the order of phenomenon." — To which, Messrs. Sale
and Lafont legitimately responded in L'Evolution regressive ["Regressive
Evolution"] , p. 47: "Isn't creation an absolute beginning?" The Faith tells us
that God daily creates the souls of babies, and that in the beginning He
created the spiritual soul of the first man. For Him the miracle is an
absolute beginning which is not at all repugnant to reason.
CF: on this point, P. Descoqs, S.I., Autour de la crise du transformisme
["On the crisis of transformation."], 2nd edition, 1944, p. 85.
Finally, as Father Descoqs remarked, Ibid, p. 2 and 7, the theologians
should not be speaking so much about evolutionism and transformism,
since the best minds such as P. Lemolue, Professor at the Museum writes:
"Evolution is a kind of dogma which these priests do not believe, but that
they hold for their people. Thus it is necessary to have the courage to say
so. so that the men of the next generation will conduct their research by
otner methods." CF. Conclusion of V. 5 of L'Encyclop6dia frangaise (1937).
Dr. H. Rouviere, professor in the Department of Medicine of Paris, member
of the Academy of Medicine, also writes in Anatomie philosophique, La
finalite dans Involution ["Philosophical anatomies [or forms]: Finality in
Evolution"] p. 37: The doctrine of transformism collapses upon itself ... The
majority of biologists have distanced themselves from it because the
defenders of transformism have never produced the least proof to support
their theory and everything known about evolution contradicts their
contentions."

34. Nulla propositio abstracta potest haberi ut immutabiliter vera." "Etiarn
post fidem conceptam, homo non debet quiescere in dogmatlbus religionis,
eisque fixe et immobiliter adhaerere, sed semper anxius manere
progredlendl ad ulteriorem veritatem, nempe evoivendo in novos sensus,
Immo et corrlgendo Id quod credit " CF: Monitore ecclesiastico, 1925,
p. 194.

35. CF: Monitore ecclesiastico, 1925, p. 194.

36. praesentia corporis Christi per modum substantlae

37. sess XIII, cap. 4 and can. 2 (Denz. 877.884)

38. "quam quidem conversionem catolica Eclesia aptissime
transsubstantiationem appelaC

39. In the same article we read: "In the scholastics' perspective, the idea
of thing-sign was lost. In an Augustinian universe, where a material thing
is not only itself, but rather a sign of spiritual realities, one can say that a
thing, being through the will of God the sign of another thing, which it was
by nature, [that thing] might become itself other without changing
appearance."

In the scholastic perspective, the idea of thing-sign is not lost at all. Saint
Thomas says, 1st, q. 1, a. 10: "Auctor S. Schpturae est Deus, in cuius
potestate est, ut non solum voces ad significandum accommodet (quod
etiam homo facere potest) sed etiam res ipsas." Thus Isaac who prepared
to be sacrificed is the figure of Christ, and the manna is the figure of the
Eucharist St. Thomas notes this when speaking of this sacrament. But by
the Eucharist consecration the bread does not only become the sign of the
Body of Christ, and the wine the sign of His Blood, as the sacramentaries

of the Protestants are thought to be. CF. D.T.C. art. Sacramentaire; out as
it was formally defined at the Council of Trent, the substance of bread is
changed into that of the Body of Christ which was rendered present per
modum substantiae under the species of bread. And this is not only
germane to the theologians of the era of the Council regarding the
consecration. It is the immutable truth defined by the Church.

40. "conversio totius substantiae panis in Corpus et totius substantiae vini
in Sanguinem, manentibus duntaxat speciebus panis et vini." Denz. 884.

41 . St. Thomas clearly distinguished the three presences of God: first, the
general presence of God in all the creatures which He brought into
existence (1st. q. 8, a. 1); 2nd, the special presence of God in the just by
grace. He is in them as in a temple, acknowledged by a recognizable
quasi-experienced object., q. 43. a. 3; 3rd, the presence of the Word in the
humanity of Jesus through the hypostatic union. Thus it is certain that after
the Incarnation God was more present on the earth in Judea than
elsewhere. But when one thinks that St. Thomas has not even known how
to pose these problems, then one goes off into all types of flights of fancy,
and returns to modernism with the off-handedness that can be read on
every one of these pages.

42. "Veritas non est immutabilis piusquam ipse homo, quippe quae cum
ipso, in ipso et per ipsum evolvitur". (Denz. 2058)

43. 1896, p. 36, section 413; 1897, p. 62, 239, 627; 1898. p. 578

44. Authors such as Teder and Papus, in their explication of martlnist
doctrine, teach a mystical pantheism and a neo-qnostlcism by which
everything comes out of God by emanation (there is then a fall, a cosmic
evil, a sui generis original sin), and all aspire to be re-integrated into the
divinity, and all shall arrive there. This is in many recent occultists' works
on the modem Christ, and fulness in terms of astral light, ideas not at all
those of the Church and which are blasphemous inversions because they
are always the pantheistic negation of the true supernatural, and often even
the negation of the distinction of moral good and of moral evil, in order to
allow only that which is a useful or desired good, including cosmic or
physical evil, which with the reintegration of alt. without exception, will

45. Certainly we admit that the true mystical
in the just from the gifts of the Holy Spirit, above all. the gift of wisdom.
confirms the faith, because it demonstrates to us that the revealed
mysteries correspond to our most profound hopes, and arouses the highest
of those hopes. We recognize that there is a truth of life, a conformity of the
spirit, with the life of the man of good will, and a peace which is the sign of
tmth. But this mystical experience supposes the infused faith, and the act
of faith itself supposes faith in the revealed mysteries.

Likewise, as the Vatican Council expresses it, we are able to have, by the
natural light of reason, the certainty that God exists as the author of nature.
Solely because of that, it is necessary that the principles of these proofs,
in particular that of causality, are tnje per conformitatem ad ens
extramentale, and that they are demonstrable through sufficiently
objectively proofs (subject a priori to the free choice of men of good willj,
and not only through a sufficiently subjective proof, as that of the Kantian
one of the existence of God.

Finally the practical truth of prudence (per conformitatem ad intentionem
rectam) supposes that our intention is truly strictly fixed on the ultimate end
of man. and the judgment of the end of men must be true secundum mentis
conformitatem adrealitatem extramentalem. CF. I II. Q. 19, a. 3, ad 2

This article was reprinted from the August, 1998
issue of Catholic Family News — a Roman Catholic monthly
published 12 times a year. Extra copies of this reprint may
be obtained for $2.50 from:

Catholic Family News
In U.S.A: M.P.O. Box 743, Niagara Falls, NY 14302
In Canada: P.O. Box 694, Niagara Falls ON L2E 6V5
Subscriptions to Catholic Family News are obtainable at a special
price of $18.00 per year ($25.00 Canadian plus GST). Sample issues
available upon request. List of reprints from various issues available
- by sending a self-addressed stamped business envelope.

Catholic Family News Reprint

9

#309

Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. (1877-1964)

Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P. (1877-1964) was a philosopher and theologian of great
wisdom, learning and holiness, one of the greatest theologians of the 20th Century. Born in Auch, France
as a young man he studied medicine at the University of Bordeaux before entering the Dominican Order
in 1897. He completed his ecclesiastical studies under the direction of A. Gardeil. From 1909 until 1960
he taught fundamental, dogmatic and spiritual theology at what is now called the Pontifical University
of St. Thomas Aquinas (the Angelicum) in Rome, and he served during the latter part of his career as a
consulter to the Holy Office and other Roman congregations. Beginning around age 27, he wrote more
than 500 books and articles, many of which have been translated from the original French or Latin into
other languages.

Father Garrigou-Lagrange was a zealous proponent of the doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas as
expounded by the classical commentators of the Dominican school — Cajetan (Tommaso de Vio) Banez
John of St. Thomas and Charles Billuart. He combined a great respect for the past with an"
understanding and appreciation of the intellectual and spiritual needs of his own time. His principal
theses are set forth systematically in .his La Synthese thomiste (Reality: A Synthesis of Thomistic
Thought). In philosophy his first outstanding work was Le sens commun, la philosophie de I'etre et les
. formules dogmatiques suivi d'une Hude sur la valeur de la critique moderniste des preuves thomistes de
I'existence de Dieu (1909), a work written against Modernism and its conception of the e^Mtion of
dogma. There he reaffirmed the validity of the philosophy of being. Of moderate realism, and of
Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphysics, which is simply the development of elementary and primordial ideas
by natural intelligence. Then turning to dogmatic formula which he did not wish to tie to any
philosophical system, he showed their rational value and stability. Knowledge of dogma and of dogmatic
expressions and formulas can progress, but the dogma remains always immutable in itself. Father
Garrigou-Lagrange's most important philosophical work was God — His Existence and His Nature: A
Thomistic Solution of Certain Agnostic Antinomies; in this work he laid great stress on the Thomistic
doctrine concerning the identity of essence and existence in God and the real distinction of essence and
existence in the creature.

The major part of Father Garrigou-Lagrange's work, however, was theological. His classic work
entitled De revelatione ab ecclesia proposita (1918, rev. ed. 1932) presented apologetics as a theological
rather than a philosophical science, as a rational defense of divine revelation made by reason under
positive direction by Faith. He endeavored to protect the notion of Faith as an essentially supernatural
gift that transcends by far the elaborations of human thought and cannot be the fruit of a rational
syllogism, which can lead the mind no further than to the judgment of credibility; at the same time he
strove to avoid the pitfall of a fideism that would ignore reason and human study. Father Garrigou-
Lagrange's masterly commentary (7 vol.) on the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas is a
comprehensive development and treatment of the truths of faith according to the theology of St. Thomas
Aquinas.

It is probably for his theology of the spiritual life that Father Garrigou-Lagrange is most well-
known; in spiritual theology the principal points of his doctrine were established in the light of Thomistic
teaching. Adopting the position of Father John Arintero, O.P., he insisted vigorously on the universal call
to holiness and therefore to infused contemplation and to the mystical life as the normal ways of holiness
or Christian perfection. Among his most fundamental works in this field are Christian Perfection and
Contemplation, Les Trois conversions et les trois.voies (The Three Ways of the Spiritual Life)- The Love
of God and the Cross of Jesus; The Three Ages of the Interior Life; De sanctificatione sacerdotum
secundum exigentas temporis nostri (The Priesthood and Perfection); and De unione sacerdotis cum
Christo Sacerdote et Victima (The Priest in Union with Christ). He also wrote a book entitled Mere
Franqoise de Jesus, fondatrice de la Compagnie de la Vierge, as well as numerous articles for La Vie
Spirituelle and Angelicum.

Other books of Father Garrigou-Lagrange which have been translated into English (in addition
to those whose titles are given above in English) include: Christ the Savior; The Theological Virtues— vol.
1: Faith, Grace; Life Everlasting, The One God; Our Savior and His Love for Us; Predestination,
Providence; The Trinity and God the Creator; The Mother of the Savior and Our Interior Life; Beatitude
(moral theology, on human acts and habits), and his retreat conferences published posthumously as The
Last Writings of Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange.

Taken from The New Catholic Encyclopedia

Catholic Family News Reprint

10